New FCC Chairman

his name backwards is literally pajeet
can't make this shit up

File: download.jpg (103KB, 1160x629px) Image search: [Google]

103KB, 1160x629px

>>58595115
Holy fuck... How did I miss that

>>58595107
>voting for tramp
kek enjoy your curry, burger cucks

>>58595107
>trump literally put pajeet into power
how can trumpcucks even recover

>The name is Ajit, P. Ajit

At least we triggered those feminists XDDD

Trump is going to skullfuck net neutrality which will ruin the internet.

>>58595140
>>58595142
>>58595147
Well the US withdrew from the TPP today which was a bigger fucking deal than Net Neutrality probably because of Trump

>>58595107
Fuck net neutrality. Im tired of plebs and poors clogging up the tubes. It's time to get back to a simple time when the internet was great.

>>58595274
is my understanding of net neutrality correct?

nn makes every site run the same

and without it sites can pay extra to have their sites faster

is my reasoning correct?

>>58595364
lolno. Sites will pay to have their sites not slowed down artificially. And if they compete with a conglomerate's other properties (Comcast/Universal for example) no amount of bribe will suffice. Pai will shockingly take a senior VP level job at one of these companies once his work is done.

>>58595480
why are they slowing them in the first place

at least it'll be motivation to not waste as much time on my pc

>>58595364
enjoy paying extra every month just to have youtube not count against your monthly data cap

how much does it cost to move to the UK?

Indfag here, ask me anything... non IT related since I have no knowledge of how things work.

>>58595505
People are less likely to use slow sites.

>>58595558
How is net neutrality going to stop that?

>>58595581
Convert to Wahhabi Islam and you can obtain a relocation sponsorship.

>>58595674
non-IT related question, why do you poo in the street?

>>58595274
Just make a completely new network

Fuck the internet. It's been soiled by normies and third-worlders

>>58595505
Extortion.
Comcast slowed down the peering links between Netflix and their network until Netflix agreed to pay them money for the "privilege" of serving their customers.

The same thing happens with Comcast and the backbone internet providers (Telia/Level 3/Cogent). Normally, a last-mile ISP like Comcast will pay a Tier 1 ISP like Telia for "transit," in order to link their customers with the internet backbone. However, Comcast used their market dominance to force Tier 1 ISPs to provide transit for free.

Basically Comcast gets to double-dip like a fucking railroad robber baron. They charge customers for access to the internet, then force companies like Netflix to pay for the privilege of serving their customers. All while doing arguably the least difficult part of keeping the internet running.

>>58596047
>uninformed redditor gets everything completely wrong about the Comcast/Netflix incident
http://blog.streamingmedia.com/2014/02/media-botching-coverage-netflix-comcast-deal-getting-basics-wrong.html

We never had net neutrality in the first place
Stop being such scared idiots

>>58596072
>Actually reading this shill garbage

>>58595159
And who the fuck was in the TPP, because the EU rejected it way before you.

Big fucking deal. The TPP was actually meant to favour USA vs China, which was excluded. You literally kicked yourself in the teeth.

>>58596047
>T-Mobile was successfully sued by the state of California and when they tried to make certain music streaming sites exempt from their mobile data caps.

That's interesting because T-mobile is trying the exact same thing here in the Netherlands now.

We used to have net neutrality but the EU recently abolished it.
T-mobile wants to test if EU law indeed goes above national law, if so we're utterly fucked.

>>58596097
>netflix shill tries to call someone else a shill

>>58596072
>defending comcast
drink bleach trumpcuck

>>58596108
>oh vey Comcast is the one at fault not Netflix! Comcast should just accept traffic from Netflix for free!

>ANAGRAM FOR 'I A PAJIT'
i wanna get off the ride

>>58596125
Clinton supports TPP, Trump does not.

The TPP has provisions in it that would have essentially banned GPL software from being used in commercial products and you stupid assholes were worried about net neutrality? It also would've given US copyright holder the ability and power to issue DMCA-style takedown notices overseas, which ISPs would have had to have addressed by disconnecting the user. I'm sure the eurofags would've loved getting disconnected from their ISP because some company in the US said so.

>>58596163
trumptrain has no brakes
enjoy your ride ;^)

>>58596189
He doesn't need to you stupid DRUMPFAG

He kills net neutrality, which is what he WILL do, and now Comcast gets to control what you can do on the internet

>>58596072
>posts some comcuck source
>"hurr its technically not net neutrality related"

Refusing to upgrade interconnects, despite increased demand by your own customers, until you receive payment.

Doesn't sound like you're treating traffic equally, kike.

>doesn't respond to the fact that Comcast is literally extorting free transit from Tier 1 ISPs
>literally defending Comcast

>>58596209
>Daily reminder that censorship is something a government does. A private organization can do whatever the hell it wants as long as it abides the law, and if it wasn't for net neutrality, any ISP could filter, limit and block whatever they want. But that's not the case.
Censorship doesn't stop becoming censorship just because it's legal or done by a government. If i write "fucking bullshit" and someone changes that into "crap" that's censorship, regardless of if it's allowed or not.

>>58596199
Trump will only fuck you amerifats
Clinton was worse on the global scale.
I don't give a shit if you all become poorfags. ;^)

>>58596209
If anything, it's the Tier 1 ISPs who are extorting free bandwidth from Comcast. They're the ones being paid to deliver Netflix's packets to Comcast, and they should be the ones charged with upgrading the interconnect.

>>58596083
good goy

>>58596240
It's funny but 4g could've been the biggest bait and switch ever but Verizon et all were just too damn greedy to consider it.

Then Google single handedly killed net neutrality in the mobile space, no wonder they want fiber to last forever.

But no let's have a bi-hourly anti-apple circlejerk because of a headphone jack, because this is a babby board with headphones faggots.

File: 1483487530760.jpg (15KB, 384x395px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 384x395px

>>58596223
>censorship is bad if the government does it
>but it's okay if a private company does it

"$0.05 has been deposited into your U-Verse account"

>>58596244
>giving corporations the right to dictate online policy is a good thing

When net neutrality is a distant memory, we'll have retards like you to thank for it

>>58596288
>to dictate online policy
What the fuck do you even mean?

>>58596271
>What's going to happen when the UN takes over the internet?
What's going to happen? At least 2 things. Net neutrality will no longer be in the hands of congressman who want to sell it to big business, and we won't have retarded american politicians trying to censor porn and other things they don't like.

>>58595115
no it's fucking not you literal retard.

>>58596292

>Net neutrality is under threat in Congress. Whether it’s slashing the FCC’s budget, attempting to prohibit the agency from enforcing its Open Internet Order, or stalling essential protections with redundant and unnecessary “studies,” lawmakers are using every trick they can to undermine the FCC’s work to keep the Internet free and open.

>As Congress debates the 2016 appropriations bills, numerous attempts are underway to introduce amendments designed to keep the FCC from enforcing its open Internet rules.

>Let’s tell lawmakers to stop standing in the way of net neutrality.

>>58596244
Tier 1 ISP's aren't selling connections between Netflix and Comcast. They're just selling access to their network. Netflix paid for access at a specified bandwidth to a Tier 1 ISP. Comcast feels that paying to connect to an ISP that maintains massive fiber links between continents is beneath them.

File: 1484659138294.png (269KB, 1280x960px) Image search: [Google]

269KB, 1280x960px

>"I cannot be bought out"
>gets bought out by kikes

>>58596338
He literally sold his daughter to a kike.

>>58596312
Again, what the fuck are you getting at?

>>58596324
Ahh yes, how evil of Comcast to send traffic from a Tier 1 ISP to homes through the cables it laid for free instead of giving money.

>>58596358
http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/18/politics/donald-trump-israel-palestinian-neutral/

You're literally wrong

>>58596178
We would never adopt the TPP. We we the first to reject it.

And actually the TPP was concieved to favour the USA economy. That's why we rejected it. It would have forced us to lower our consumer, environmental and labour standards to USA levels.

As always if we have people working on programs the government hasn't found yet we will be and stay ahead we may have to use our northern brothers to send us said programs but we can avoid being censored

>Pai---Ajit
>Wants to introduce even more botnet
>FCC chairman
Fucking meme magic strikes again.

>>58596366
I mean i dislike a lot of bernies policies, especially with illegals being able to vote, but i agree with him on net neutrality.

Why do people only vote for the big three? I wish the government was run by a lot of people from different parties instead of a lot of people from 2 parties. It would be nice

>>58596364
>inb4 autistic screeching about fake news

File: 1484453362229.jpg (54KB, 480x640px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 480x640px

>>58596366
>It would have forced us to lower our consumer, environmental and labour standards to USA levels.

I'm a retard, can you explain further?

>>58596378
Recent poll results show that Trump has a pretty high chance of winning the presidential election.

What are you going to do when net neutrality gets fucked in the asshole with a blindfold on, and the internet goes to shit?

>>58595107
He's American, born and bred in Kansas. He just looks Indian.

>>58596364
What the fuck does that have to do with net neutrality?

>>58596387
>Look up Trump
>Says he would "err on the side of security" and support maintaining the Patriot Act and continuing mass surveillance.
>Mistakenly believes the FCC’s Net Neutrality protections are an "attack on the Internet" that would "target conservative media."

it's like you fags care more about voting in a meme president than your actual freedom

Meanwhile Jeb even used Thinkpads, but no, lets piss the libruls amirite?

>>58596358
You think fiber OC's that cross oceans and national boundaries, and NOC's located in every goddamn continent are free?

Comcast literally does the easiest part of maintaining the internet and you faggots lap it up. Read a book, nigger.

Internet was great during the Bush era (2000-2008) when we had no NN.

Then NN came into the picture in 2008 and coincidentally the internet went to shit.

Undisputed facts.

This Pajeet will make the internet great again.

>>58596399
Sanders is against net-neutrality and mass surveillance. For that alone I would vote for him over Trump who has no problem with mass surveillance and is even enthusiastic about expanding surveillance.

>>58596416
Too late now. We're fucked.

>>58595107
I am myself poo and this makes me wanna poo in Trump tower.

>>58596413
If it's so easy then why don't they just extend lines to consumers as well?

>>58596415
Can you read, you fucking autist?
Facebook was pushing down free basics on Indians, the Indians noticed that it violated net neutrality, petitioned trai, and got Facebook's freebasics banned. Learn to read.

>>58596458
This boils my piss, /g/

Over the last decade the internet has got more restricted, twenty years ago it was all usenet boards and shit, you were a pirate on the open sea. These days normies use "apps" from the "marketplace" to browse eBay and Amazon for shopping, Facebook for socialisation.

It's like the whole Net Neutrality thing. Imagine pic related. Most internet users wouldn't notice the difference.

Sure these things don't effect anyone with a modicum of knowledge, but the continuing trend in clamping down on freedom isn't going to reverse. When I was a kid I would look through Geocities for nudes. These days kids just close Minecraft on their iPad and open their Pornhub app. I mean, compare the easy modification of XP to Windows 10 or iOS.

>>58596475
What does that have to do with net neutrality?

>>58596459

Why would the Pajeets petition to get rid of free Facebook? Only reddit tier retards probably did and now no Pajeet has free Facebook, good going, faggot.

>>58595364
Net neutrality means a packet is a packet. They must be neutral as to content. It stops ISPs from regulating the internet based upon the content of the packet.
No net neutrality means the ISP can pick and choose. They can make sites that compete with their content sites pay more. They can slow down their internet. They can impose data caps on your browsing of other sites while giving their sites a free pass.

No net neutrality means the internet becomes owned by the telcos. Nothing exists without their permission, and they can replace anything with their own version.

"Welcome to Verizon's 4 Channel! I'm your Community Moderator Stacy! We hope you have a good time here, but remember to keep it civil! This is an all ages board!"
>Verizon
*this post was deleted in accordance with our Community Guidelines*

>>58596458
Because providing local internet means you have to deal with the Comcast-installed local bureaucracy and red tape?

Shit, not even Google could beat Comcast's army of entrenched local lobbyists. They didn't give a shit about net neutrality, their main beef was with local regulations.

>>58596099
anime and my doijins is more imprtant

>>58595159
obama was against it

>>58596499
>>50440994
>When the fuck does the internet market become not shit?
When people in the USA start to understand that they don't have to accept an oligopoly.

1) Complain to the FCC
2) Get your friends and family to complain to the FCC
3) Help elect politicians that support real competition among ISPs.

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/09/if-elected-president-jeb-bush-will-get-rid-of-net-neutrality-rules/

>>58596511
>No net neutrality means the internet becomes owned by the telcos. Nothing exists without their permission, and they can replace anything with their own version.

Google and Apple do the exact same thing with their App Stores.

Android and iOS, the biggest fucking monopolies in technology by far.

>>58596544
Why won't the candidates talk about net neutrality/ federal internet policy? We use the Internet literally everyday, how is this not even mentioned and imagration is over and over. Will/ should the next president defend net neutrality as Obama did? Does the internet matter?

>>58596511
So when Netflix takes up 150% of the bandwidth of the ISP, they'll be forced to just ruin everyone's connection instead of just those using Netflix! Sounds like a great idea!

>>58595140
>voting for a candidate because come on, it's 2016

>>58596558
You can't get more than 100% capacity you idiot. If their bandwidth is saturated then they need to upgrade their infrastructure as it clearly isn't meeting the needs of the customers.

>>58596558
Why is the ISP providing more bandwidth than it can handle is the real question. Either upgrade your infrastructure or stop cheating people by selling a service you can't provide.

>>58595107
Thank you Emperor Trump

Loving all this butthurt. Wish I could know what it feels like to have everyone so fucking mad at everything you do. God damn that must feel amazing

>>58596593
>>58596595
>what is weather
>what is unexpected peak usage
Oh yes if only we had magical fairies that provide unlimited bandwidth.

>>58596595
You fucking weebs are easily brainwashed pieces of shit.
I bet if your cute uguu anime girls started telling you that net neutrality is bad, you would believe it.

I really didn't expect /g/ to be so liberal

I thought you guys were more libertarian or even conservative types

>>58596635
A critical thinker, this is my audience. All you other anons are just sheep.

I like how all the l337 ha0xors were all like "Comcast fucked Netflix" but with the above posts proving that wasn't true there are crickets. Fuck you, you consumerist fucks, fucking sheep who cannot think for yourselves with your shitty overpriced Macbooks and muh' net neutrality saved the fucking internet. You are a bunch of fucking sheep, you took what a fake news program told you at face value like a fucking pleb. You deserve what you get.

>>58596544
Access to a tended garden is not being forced into someone's walled garden. The iPhone is pretty locked down but you have about 900 other choices than the iPhone. Smartphone competition is extreme. On Android you don't have to use Google's store, just like you can install games outside of Steam on your PC. Opting into a smartphone walled garden is your choice.

Most people don't have any real choice as to ISP. They say bend over and your choice is to either take it or go without any internet. There's no robust competition. Two or three isn't enough as it's pretty natural for corporations to both hit upon the same anti-consumer strategy. The conservatard myth of the free market is that if one company is restrictive that the other will instantly swoop down to offer the best package and win 100% of the market. What actually happens is they both notice that raping you offers outstanding profit margins, and so they both do it.

>>58596667
Friendly reminder to go help /r/India fight the battle for Net Neutrality.

If we don't stop this. Governments around the world can follow this precedent. Don't let them squash our currybros.

reddit.com/r/india <- Get to it /g/uardians

>>58596667
ISPs can come up with much more creative ways of fucking you over even under net neutrality. Extremely creative methods such as imposing data caps or raising prices.

>>58596687
>Nothing of what the FCC has done thus far will affect stateside anti-competition laws
Wrong.

http://tech.slashdot.org/story/15/02/28/2050231/as-big-as-net-neutrality-fcc-kills-state-imposed-internet-monopolies

>On Thursday, before it voted in favor of "net neutrality," the Federal Communications Commission voted 3-2 to override state laws in Tennessee and North Carolina that have barred local governments and public utilities from offering broadband outside the areas where they have traditionally sold electricity.

>>58596644
>A critical thinker, this is my audience
>Fuck you, you consumerist fucks
>fucking sheep

Wew. Slow down there, Aalewis.

>>58596726
>except maybe pay for lunch/dinner.
how is that not bribery?

>Hey senator bob, let me take you out to dinner at [luxury restaurant]
>enjoying the truffle risotto with pheasant? by the way, have you heard about that net neutrality thing? Isn't it absolutely TERRIBLE? It's absolutely ruining our profits! Man I wish something could be done about that
>oh hey you know, we're voting on that next week actually... maybe I'll vote no, just for being your pal.
>oh that would be fantastic! By the way, by all means, have seconds

>>58596687
Comcast has been slowly sneaking in data caps across the country. If things go this way in my state, I'll certainly be dropping their cable tv services and putting that $ towards my internet bill.

>>58596746
>actually buying cable
Kek, net neutrality supporters, everyone.

>>58596752
Net Neutrality is good.

>>58596752
>Kek, net neutrality supporters, everyone.
You criticize me, yet if you indeed have cord cut, you stand to lose the most if big business gets their way.

>>58596752
>what are retention promos

>>58596799
How could anyone actually support corporations running wild due to free market capitalism..


EVERY SINGLE industry free market capitalism has touched has been ruined. Name a single thing it has done that has helped and industry.


If your ISP is throttling your anime on Shitflix, you won't be able to do anything because they bought everyone else out. There is nothing you can do about it but pay for better service. If the government were able to intervene then they could enforce net neutrality and prevent companies from monopolizing services which would be advantageous to consumers.

The government will fix it. Free market capitalism will not work and in 5 years you idiots are going to regret it.

>>58596824
ISPs would not purposely throttle content unless they are over capacity. And if they are, then I would prefer that they have to ability to throttle streaming traffic so everyone else can check their emails and do other tasks that are not as bandwidth intensive.

>>58596821

How much are you being paid to spread bullshit?

Net neutrality protects the open, free, internet. If you oppose it, you are a cock sucking corporate cunt.

>>58595274
Get rid of mobilefags and the internet will mostly return to levels of 10 years ago, maybe further than that.

>>58596841
Keep in mind this was just one hurdle the proposal still has to be voted on between the 5 people in the FCC and it must remain unchanged during the process or it will lose effectiveness.

Also the republicans in congress are planning on revoking the FCC's authority to regulate cable and fiber so the democrats in congress and the president have to cooperate to stop them.

http://www.dailydot.com/politics/what-happens-next-with-net-neutrality-fcc-question/

M E M E
A
G
I
C

>>58595159
>Well the US withdrew from the TPP today which was a bigger fucking deal than Net Neutrality probably because of Trump
Trump pulled from TPP since it didn't actually work to reduce the trade deficits against China, not because it's anti freedom and full of corporate cuckoldry
>>58596533
Obama is a staunch supporter of TPP, he basically fast tracked it
>>58596404
Trump was never about freedom, deluded people who were shat by Randlets and libertarians pretended he was
>>58596297
>Net neutrality will no longer be in the hands of congressman who want to sell it to big business, and we won't have retarded american politicians trying to censor porn and other things they don't like.
This would be good if the UN was better than cuck congressman
But it isn't, specially recently when it started to mobilize to support censorship provisions in the name of """"serving"""" the (((unprivileged)))
Hopefully they will go back to their track record of doing nothing and just showing [DEEP CONCERN]

>>58596240
>Clinton was worse on the global scale.
She was also worse on the national scale
Worst of it, the commiecuck of Bernie was much more of a freedom fuck than the rest of the candidates (ignoring Randlet and Sleepy Doctor of course)

>>58596912
I think it's ridiculous Americans see this as an intervention. If anything it's meant to preserve freedom.

When net neutrality was introduced in the Netherlands (and a Dutch commisioner also introduced it into Europe) all politicians supported it. ISP's lobbied for it with privacy organisations. And our net neutrality laws also prevent the scanning of traffic by isp's (deep packet inspections) because privacy.

Corpprations arent supposed to read and shape our private communications, traffic does not need to be paid for twice, and start ups need equal access to the internet keep the competition on the internet working.

>>58596415
>Then NN came into the picture in 2008 and coincidentally the internet went to shit.
NN didn't come around until 2014 you stupid murrican
And the Bush era was shit, internet was severely overpriced and Broadband was rare and a fraction of the speed in any other developed country
Of course, the current form of net neutrality is full blown retarded, it barely does anything to keep NN, it keeps prices higher for everyone specially normies, and provides the government with more legal ways towards censorship and propaganda
Of course, a lobbyist cuck like Trump wouldn't be able to fix this, he rather go full commiecuck and protect his corporate friends instead of allowing more competition and ending the local monopolies
>>58596623
If only the company actually provided the bandwidth they're selling to their consumers
>but I enjoy getting .5 Mbps of the 1000 Mbps I pay for
What a fucking cuck

>>58596987
>Corpprations arent supposed to read and shape our private communications
Nothing to do with net neutrality.
>traffic does not need to be paid for twice
Nothing to do with net neutrality
>start ups need equal access to the internet
Things are cheaper to buy in bulk. It's a fundamental principle of economics.

>>58597004
>posts some comcuck source
>"hurr its technically not net neutrality related"

Refusing to upgrade interconnects, despite increased demand by your own customers, until you receive payment.

Doesn't sound like you're treating traffic equally, kike.

>doesn't respond to the fact that Comcast is literally extorting free transit from Tier 1 ISPs
>literally defending Comcast

>>58597030
>Refusing to upgrade interconnects, despite increased demand by your own customers, until you receive payment.
Sounds like what Level 3 was doing.

>>58597037
Anyone going to the pro-net neutrality/anti-FCC protest in Chicago this Thursday?
I was thinking about going, but it has a kind of edgy feel about it. Even their picture, showing someone protesting with a fucking smart phone, seems kinda cringey. But who knows, it could be okay.
http://revolt.net/fftf.htm

>>58597049
No. I don't live in Chicongo.

>>58597059
>muh vpns
You seem to have no clue what you are talking about. Once net neutrality goes down the shitter there won't be anything worth connecting to

>>58597075
When did I say anything about vpns?

>>58597079
Switch your ISP to Andrews & Arnold. They're the only ISP that gives a shit about data retention and net neutrality.

>>58597096
What does this have to do with the conversation?
How much do they charge for 100/10?

>>58597106
Today is the last day you can comment on the FCC's neutrality proposal. Their website has crashed (figures) but you can still leave them an email at:

openinternet @ ffc dot gov

"Fast and slow lanes" hurt consumers and small businesses, major drivers of internet use and commerce. They said they would protect net neutrality, but they have totally gone against that. Let em know how you feeeeel, /g/.

>>58597075
>Netflix
>Reddit
>Facebook
>Twitter

Yeah, what a tragedy it would be to lose such premium content

>>58597118
Are you a bot?

>>58597126
>that feel when ISPs can do this with impunity now and there's nothing you can do about it because net neutrality is dead
>that feel when you can start paying a nominal fee of $9.99/month in order to watch up to 250 MB worth of YouTube videos starting in 2016

It's gonna happen.

>>58597141
Oh boo normies have to pay extra to watch VINE COMPILATION JAN-2017 *TRY NOT TO LAUGH*

They were born in consumerism and they will die by consumerism

>>58596558
How does running Netfilx out of business and forcing you to use their streaming service address the capacity problem at all?
They should be charging enough to cover upgrades. If Netflix is using more, they're paying more. That should be enough for the ISPs to expand to where they can make even more money, as their service is now more valuable.

>>58597178
ttp://www.fcc.gov/comments

tldr; leave a comment to the fcc because fuck verizon, comcast, time warner cable--your service is shitty, your
customer service is abysmal you lazy fucks, so fuck you, we will regulate
your fucking ass until your company implodes to save the internet.

Internet service providers are posed to drastically change how the internet functions.
Whereas ISPs previously delivered data fairly, meaning that no priority in the sense
of not throttling was given, they have revealed, and executed, their plan to treat
information coming from different sources differently. How are they able to do this?
With the monopoly power, collusion, and their shitastic greed to generate revenue at
the cost of the internet's, and your, freedom.

The solution is to give the FCC the power to regulate these entities so that
they cannot discriminate based on who hasn't paid them large sums of money or
basically whoever the fuck they don't like.

Obviously, this isn't a new topic, but the FCC has opened the issue up for public comments.
You can googlefu more research on the topic. The FCC issue is proceeding 14-28.
I linked a techcrunch article that has the segment from John Olliver's show.

http://techcrunch.com/2014/06/03/watch-john-olivers-brilliant-concise-primer-on-net-neutrality/
http://www.fcc.gov/comments

>>58595107
So does this mean we'll go back to simple HTML web pages and low resolution animated gifs? Based Trump

>>58597202
EU is a great thing. Really. The European commission and parliament can get stuff passed that would never even get to national parliaments, keeping the internet free - or at least more so than in the US or other 3rd world countries.

This can be a good thing for the American /g/entoomen also; when the biggest monetary union in the world stands for net neutrality, it creates pressure on the other side of the gulf to do the same.

A united Europe is a strong Europe.

File: 084.png (102KB, 300x256px) Image search: [Google]

102KB, 300x256px

>>58597221

>EU is a great thing

Except for the part where you are huge, globalist cock-sucking pussies who allow in a flood on non-assimilating migrants who wreak havoc on your people

>>58597189
Who says they are purposely trying to throttle Netflix? What if there was a storm that took down a cable and they are unable to meet network capacity during peak hours? Should they just drop packets for everyone else, or just drop packets for Netflix so everyone else can still use the internet for low bandwidth tasks?

>>58596687
Which are out in the open, obviously anti-consumer, and obvious that they can only get away with it due to monopoly. Thus the regulators at least have some leverage against them. That's broad regulation which the government is actually quite good at. What it can't do is micromanage pricing tiers. You can't give an ISP a million options to fuck over everything and then go through and give an individual yay or nay to each.

ISPs do not need to govern packet content. They serve data. If it's a terabyte of Americlap cinema, porn, or cat pictures, it's all the same to the infrastructure. Giving them the power to regulate the internet is a BAD IDEA.

>>58597282
So what are your thoughts about the FCC and net neutrality?
http://gizmodo.com/how-to-yell-at-the-fcc-about-how-much-you-hate-its-net-1576943170

>>58597282
>If it's a terabyte of Americlap cinema, porn, or cat pictures, it's all the same to the infrastructure.
Really? Where is it coming from? Where is it going to? What time of day is it? How loaded is the network in the local area?

>>58595115
Iap Tija
Well, it rhymes with pajeet in Dumbshitville, Tardnarnia.

>>58597307
HIT THEM WHERE IT HURTS

BREAK COMCAST UP SO THAT EACH COUNTY HAS AT LEAST TWO ISPS.

BAN DATA CAPS

ENSURE NET NEUTRALITY

WE ARE EXPERIENCING THIRD WORLD INTERNET SPEEDS AND BEING CHARGED OUT THE ASS BECAUSE CUMCAST REFUSES TO UPGRADE THEIR INFRASTRUCTURE.

AMERICA HAS THE SLOWESTS SPEEDS IN THE WORLD AND SOME OF THE HIGHEST PRICES.

FUCK COMCAST

>>58597266
You think people are using Netflix over dial-up?

Now we have a chance to give the european pirate party a voice in the european parlament.
Choose the country you live in this map and you will be redirected to your local pirate party so you know who you might vote.

We need to protect somehow net neutrality, we still have a chance to at least delay the death of the internet as we know it.

>>58597333
>BREAK COMCAST UP SO THAT EACH COUNTY HAS AT LEAST TWO ISPS.
You don't even need to do this
Just allow competition on the municipal level
Bell lost it's stronghold in the late 1800's when their patents expired, going from 90+% of the market to 50%, and ending with less than 20% until the US government gave them back their monopoly under the guise of national security during the first world war
>>58597358
>Now we have a chance to give the european pirate party a voice in the european parlament.
Didn't Sweden got a pirate MEP not long ago?

>>58597354
There will always be times when a network is overloaded.

>>58597377
Speaking of which, has he publicly said anything about net neutrality in months?

>>58597307
A packet is a packet. The ISPs do not need to regulate based on content.

>>58597389
Ok. So if my packet from a site in Austraila gets here later than my packet from my neighbor, can I sue my ISP for violating net neutrality?

>>58597266
>Who says they are purposely trying to throttle Netflix?
They're, it's well documented
>What if there was a storm that took down a cable and they are unable to meet network capacity during peak hours?
They should contemplate this when selling the service and provisioning their networks
>Should they just drop packets for everyone else, or just drop packets for Netflix so everyone else can still use the internet for low bandwidth tasks?
They should reduce the service of everyone according to the drop in capacity, not just enforce whatever they believe it's more necessary you fucking socialist retard
>>58597401
>strawmanning
Well done reddit

bot247 will kill this thread in 3 minutes

>>58597379
And?

>>58597401
>The ISP owns 100% of the stock in my neighbor's business. They cut off my access to Australia's competing business. This is a good thing for me... because freedom! Right?

>>58597411
Answer the question. Can I sue my ISP if a packet from Austrailia takes longer to arrive?

>>58596306
>>58597318
Ajit Pai
> Pai Ajit
> PaiAjit
> Paiajit
> Pajeet

>>58597422
Going full fallacy and moving the goalposts doesn't mean your argument is valid

>>58597422
Where are you getting that speed of light delays are purposeful throttling and extortion through pricing tiers?

>>58597422
Open up another browser and tell us who you work for and how much this pays.

>>58597432
You're the one moving the goalposts.
>HURR DURR A PACKET IS A PACKET

>>58597430
So what do you consider net neutrality regulations? Give specific ways that you would enforce it.

>>58597447
Do you work directly for a telco or do you work for someone that contracts shill work out?

>>58597447
AMD:
never supported SOPA
never lobbied against net neutrality
contributes to GCC, has never contributed any performance optimizations that would cripple code on other X86 chips
never bribed OEMs to create what is effectively a monopoly
never paid off reviewers to publish phony benches to make their CPUs look better than they really were
never got censured by the US government as well as the EU for unethical business practices
never worked hand in hand with the MPAA to create new forms of DRM
created Mantle to push both OpenGL and D3D forward in performance and low level optimization
created the HSA foundation to push forward compute languages and codify a system for programmability across all logic in a system with data coherency at its core
created AMD64, the 64bit extension to X86 used by every modern X86 processor
has created countless other standards and freely contributed them to the computing world


They're the only CPU vendor worthy of my business, despite being crippled by a decade of poor management.

>>58597458
I'm a NEET. Answer the question.

>>58597458

Are you a shill for Karl Marx?

>>58597475
So why would you want the ISP monopolies to control your internet?

>>58597447
>So what do you consider net neutrality regulations? Give specific ways that you would enforce it.
Simply not throttling according to content or destination you stupid retard
>b-but chink style DPI is good! believe me! I'm totally not a commie
>>58597486
Good projecting faggot

>>58597459
I really want to support them, but why are they so technologically inferior to it's competitors.

>>58597496

First you need to understand what a monopoly is. Then you need to realize that ISP's have been controlling the internet since it's inception.

>>58597509
Why do you want the ISP monopolies to control your internet?

>>58597496
I don't as long as it doesn't lead to regulations that would deteriorate the quality of the network. How is net neutrality going to help that? Please give me specific ways you would enforce net neutrality laws.

>>58597498
>Simply not throttling according to content or destination you stupid retard
Ok, so let's there's a power outage in LA. ISPs should be still be forced to send packets there during a congested period even though they know that their local node there is down?

>>58597503
>decade of poor management
This pretty much sums it up, Bulldozer was purely a product of bad management, that crippled the company for years
>>58597528
>Ok, so let's there's a power outage in LA. ISPs should be still be forced to send packets there during a congested period even though they know that their local node there is down?
>sell 100% uptime
>be unable to provide it
>i-it's the weathers fault goy!
It's nice that you enjoy the thinking mans fetish, but not everyone is a cuck senpai

>>58596306
>literal
end yourself

>>58597537
ISPs do not sell 100% uptime. They have SLAs that they have to meet otherwise you get a refund. But this is something that someone from reddit probably would not know.

>>58597401
Yes. And then you would have to prove that the ISP is using special measures to perform that throttling.

RIP America.
Although I do have to agree, the net neutrality bill they're trying to pass in America does not look anywhere near as bad as the one that got approved in Brazil; the Marco Civil.

>>58597528
You really don't understand what net neutrality is? It forbids ISPs to charge different rates based on content. It's enforced by someone complaining that the ISP is treating them unfairly and the regulator telling them to knock it off.
The consumer passively reaps the rewards by having access that isn't fettered by the ISPs.

>>58597581
So Apparently the Republican leadership just sent the FCC a letter advising them to drop net neutrality.

House Republican leaders sent Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Chairman Tom Wheeler a letter today urging the commission to drop consideration of new federal “net neutrality” regulations that would undermine a free and open Internet and hurt our economy at the same time.

Signed by House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH), House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA), House Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy (R-CA), and House Republican Conference Chair Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA), the letter states:

“We are writing to respectfully urge you to halt your consideration of any plan to impose antiquated regulation on the Internet, and to warn that implementation of such a plan will needlessly inhibit the creation of American private sector jobs, limit economic freedom and innovation, and threaten to derail one of our economy’s most vibrant sectors. At a time when technology businesses need certainty to innovate, this is not the time for the FCC to engage in a counterproductive effort to even further regulate the Internet.”

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/05/14/republicans_turn_up_heat_on_fcc_over_net_neutrality_push/

>>58597528

if there is no net neutrality then any site that doesn't pay x tariff wouldn't have the same speeds as a large site that can afford x tariff

so then whenever a potential customer visits the small site, they encounter long load times and slower downloads. that's not professional, so they discontinue their interest in small business.

but with net neutrality, small business has the same load times and download speeds as large business, and they have the chance to sell themselves without being shunned at the door.

there should be full open bandwidth to all servers, regardless of what they're paying for their services.

>>58597593

>2014

the best way to sell your case is to use relevant sources.

>>58597581
Where is this content coming from? Where is this content going to? What do you mean by rate? Bandwidth? Data? If I pay $30 a month for 50/10 internet, and someone else across the country pays $25 for the same price, isn't that violating net neutrality?

>>58597547
Of course they don't, but that retarded argument implied they did
If they cannot route the packets to their destination of course they won't route them, and eventually provide a refund if they can't meet their SLA's (which of course no American ISP does)
But it's not necessary to do DPI to assert what to send or what to not send, only commiecucks like you believe it's necessary to know everything to be able to provide a service
If there was a free market in the US DPI would simply not be used, since it's much more expensive than just dropping the packets until the final node
>>58597597
Differentiated tariffs would work even for small businesses if they were cheap enough, which would happen if ISP's didn't have monopolies made possible by government (((regulation)))

>>58597597
however when it comes to the issues at hand you don't want some retarded on the subject presiding. I WOULD liken the debate over net-neutrality to living in a cartoon world where EVERY SINGLE FUCKING PERSON ON /g/ is the smartest. The people in politics ARE ALL FUCKING LAWYERS. They are OLD lawyers.

there is a serious problem with the US's lack of STEM in power and it is leading to FUCKED up things, the youtube clips being case and point.

>>58597576
And how would you prove it? By installing special meters everywhere to measure things? What if it's Netflix's fault that they didn't buy enough bandwidth, and now people are falsely accusing AT&T of violating net neutrality? Does AT&T now have to pay millions of dollars to install special meters everywhere to prove their innocence?

>>58597609
Do you not understand what the word "content" means?

>>58597611
>If they cannot route the packets to their destination of course they won't route them
That's against net neutrality rules though.

>>58597644
No, I am pretty dumb. Please elaborate.

>>58597649
content1
[kon-tent]
Spell Syllables
Synonyms Examples Word Origin
See more synonyms on Thesaurus.com
noun
1.
Usually, contents.
something that is contained:
the contents of a box.
the subjects or topics covered in a book or document.
the chapters or other formal divisions of a book or document:
a table of contents.
2.
something that is to be expressed through some medium, as speech, writing, or any of various arts:
a poetic form adequate to a poetic content.
3.
significance or profundity; meaning:
a clever play that lacks content.
4.
substantive information or creative material viewed in contrast to its actual or potential manner of presentation:
publishers, record companies, and other content providers; a flashy website, but without much content.
5.
that which may be perceived in something:
the latent versus the manifest content of a dream.
6.
Philosophy, Logic. the sum of the attributes or notions comprised in a given conception; the substance or matter of cognition.
7.
power of containing; holding capacity:
The bowl's content is three quarts.

>>58597611

>cheap enough

you're talking about companies like Independent Web Server vs Google/AT&T/Comcast. the sort of money to rise to the top would be expensive.

and there really isn't much regulation for ISPs federally, there are several cities that have (very successful) ISPs which provide quality internet to millions.

>>58597613

the reason that a lot of the libertarian/left candidates didn't win is because they're being antagonistic, just like you. stop swearing and stop finger pointing and start bringing up the real root of the issue and maybe you might get somewhere.

>>58597663
Even if I am pretty dumb, I know how to look up a definition.
Can you answer these questions?

Where is this content coming from? Where is this content going to? What do you mean by rate? Bandwidth? Data? If I pay $30 a month for 50/10 internet, and someone else across the country pays $25 for the same price, isn't that violating net neutrality?

>>58595274
>I'm retarded
>I don't realize that every modern website has dozens more pictures, dozens more advertising, and dozens more data gathering packets than 10 years ago and that clogs the fuck out of the internet.
>I think browsing 4chan should be incredibly slow compared to a big website I don't often visit like Microsoft.

>>58597677
You apparently can't read.

>>58597581

>>58597676
Independent Web Servers connect to consumer ISPs through middleman Tier 1 networks like Level 3, which, naturally, charge some money and make a profit as a middleman. Google lays to connect directly to Comcast, which results in cheaper prices for both parties involved. It's simply the nature of the business that things are cheaper to buy in bulk.

>>58597700
So Comcast charges me $50 a month for a certain speed of internet. Bob across the country gets the same speeds for $30 a month. Is that illegal under net neutrality?

>>58597706

but they're already paying middleman tier 1 through hosting fees, so they shouldn't face double-dipping because tier 3 wants to get a piece of the pie too.

>>58597725
No, that has nothing to do with content.

>>58597728
When has that ever happened?

>>58597737
Why? I'm uploading some content to YouTube. Bob is doing the same. Why is his content cheaper to transfer?

>>58597744
Unless they're charging you more because you're uploading to Youtube, they're not charging you based on content. "A packet is a packet." What they charge for "a packet" is a completely different thing and not under net neutrality.

>>58597758
Ok. So Comcast can say that since YouTube is on a different location than Netflix the difference in price that they are giving to the different services are because of "location" and not "content"?

>>58597811
Are you pretending to be an idiot?

>>58597833
No. You're regulations are really unclear. That's why I am asking for clarification. Comcast isn't charging YouTube more because they're uploading to me rather than Bob, just like they aren't charging me more when I'm uploading to YouTube rather than Vimeo.

>>58595107
At least the coloured historically go easy on porn legislation

>>58597857
So you're a real idiot

>>58597863
I really hope any legislators who write these rules aren't as unclear as you are.

>>58597872
>implying I wrote any posts other than these two
>>58597833
>>58597863

Anyone with an IQ over 50 could understand the examples given in this thread.

>>58597811
Yes, they can charge based on the costs that are actually different. That's infrastructure, not regulating internet content.

>>58597857
Thank net neutrality for that. And net neutrality ensures it stays that want.

>>58597887
And how can you tell the difference in costs? What's preventing them from abusing that clause to regulate internet content?

>>58597901
A judge. That's why they're called "judges."
Do you need me to link you to the definition of "judge"?

>>58597911
Judges can be bought by Comcast.

>>58597918
Then we fire the fucking judge and seat one who follows the law.

>>58597924
The law makes it really unclear what is acceptable or not.

>>58597928
You're an idiot, so you're just going to have to face that you'll never truly be clear on anything. Anything you think you're clear on is probably wrong.

>>58597956
>YOU'RE AN IDIOT!!!
>THESE REGULATIONS WILL JUST WERK! TRUST ME! ANYONE CAN UNDERSTAND THEM
>NOPE, THEY HAVE NO POSSIBILITY OF BEING ABUSED!

>>58597928
Even if that were true, the solution would be to make them clearer, not get rid of them and let the ISPs go hogwild.

>>58597198
ISPs do respond to informal complaints filed with FCC, and it's another person on the other side of it -- not form letters.

That may be an interesting way to proceed.

>>58595107
>GUY IS LITERALLY NAMED PAI AJIT

You can't make this shit up LMAO

>>58597982
ISPs already have many ways to go hogwild without having to resort to charging extra for access to certain sites. The thing to do is to bust monopolies and allow competition to enter the market, not quabble about inane regulations.

>>58597963
See
>>58597956
for that part where you're "clear" on them being abused.

>>58598043
>ISPs already have many ways to go hogwild
No, they don't. They're monopolies, and when they act monopolistic the government swoops right in.

>>58598044
Ahh yes. Why don't we just add another regulation that everyone must be nice to each other? That will bring about world peace! Why didn't anyone think of this before?

>>58598043
>ISPs already have many ways to go hogwild without having to resort to charging extra for access to certain sites.

Yes, I'm aware of that. That doesn't mean they we should let them do that.

>>58598069
Just like how the government is stopping Comcast from setting up data caps right?

>>58598070
See
>>58597956

>>58598083
You keep referring to that quote, but I can assure you that I am not an idiot and I am perfectly clear on many things, such as your idiocy.

>>58598080
"Keeping an eye out for anti-competitive or anti-consumer practices" isn't the same as, 'Giving you everything you whine for."
A data cap isn't inherently unjustifiable. This is where the "judgement" comes in. (I knew I should've posted the definition.) We can look at Comcast's capacity. We can look at how much Comcast is taking in from overages. If Comcast has plenty of capacity and it looks like Comcast isn't using data caps merely to curb abuse of their generosity but as an active profit center through massive penalties, we can say, "No. Just fucking charge upfront for the service."

>>58598098
See
>>58598098
for, "I am clear that I am not an idiot"

>>58597597
>so then whenever a potential customer visits the small site, they encounter long load times and slower downloads. that's not professional, so they discontinue their interest in small business.

Damn right it's not professional to have a bloated website. Throttle your speed to 128kbps and go visit amazon or ebay. Those sites are obscenely bloated. A few pictures and some text should not require that much data. Both of these sites were usable when I had 56k dial up. Then refresh /g/. It's a completely different story. Any large content is previewed as a thumb nail and the file size is listed. It is really fucked up when 4chan can be held up as an example of how to do something right. Businesses had no problem selling at 56kbps. 128kbps is in my estimation much worse than the worst case scenario.

The pro net neutrality arguments do themselves a great disservice with all of the "the sky is falling" histrionics. The internet came to be what it is without it and will survive in its absence.

I'm starting to think this is just a distraction issue. Every issue I see brought up that net neutrality is supposed to fix could be solved by greater competition in the local markets that ISPs compete in. Additional competition fixes other problems as well. There's no technical reason 5Mbps internet should cost $40 a month here. Yet it does because there's little competition. Instead the big debate is over whether netflix should have to pay a little more for hogging 1/3 of the bandwidth transferring video files that can't be replayed from a hard drive.

>>58597628
>netflix
>didn't buy enough bandwidth

u wot m8

>>58598151
Ahh yes your tears are delicious. You can't even come up with a coherent policy to enforce net neutrality and you keep referencing that same post over and over again.

>>58598171
It's enforced by judges.

>>58598170
>>netflix
>>didn't buy enough bandwidth
Exactly what happened in 2014, which caused libtards from reddit who had no idea what was actually happening to blame local ISPs and go MUH NET NEUTRALITY

>>58596306
t. Pai-Ajit

>>58596392
>The gov't wouldn't fuck with censorship if WE HAD net neutrality.
Why are you idiots actively advocating for more gov't in our lives?

>>58595107
1) FCC will get rid of net neutrality
2) ISPs will start charging for websites like they do channels
3) ISPs have regional monopolies, so consumers have no choice but to pay up
4) people will complain and realize "shit, net neutrality was good!"
5) trump administration will cover their ears and say consumers don't know any better, ISPs need it to not go bankrupt, etc.
6) next dem will make net neutrality part of his platform
7) dems will enact net neutrality when they win in 2020

>>58596306
t. figurative retard

>>58595107
>there are people who unironically believe the federal government will keep the ISPs that have their hands in the government's pockets in check
>these people unironically believe transferring power between the two will solve anything
This board deserves the botnet

>>58595107
>>Staunch Anti-Net Neutrality
Fucking BASED

I'm actually pretty happy about this.

The FCC WON'T take over the internet.

>>58596271
>>censorship is bad if the government does it
>>but it's okay if a private company does it
Yes, this is okay.

If you don't like their services then don't use them.

Why do you keep giving them money.

We need to increase competition in telecom to increase quality and bring down prices.

>>58598413
>3) ISPs have regional monopolies
They have these because YOU SUPPORT THESE MONOPOLIES you retarded leftists.

Libertarians want to abolish these government monopolies.

File: 1484930296576.jpg (74KB, 500x381px) Image search: [Google]

74KB, 500x381px

>>58598413
>when they win in 2020

>>58598866
>he believes Republican propaganda
Hmmm.

THEY'RE STILL GOING TO TAKE OVER THE INTERNET UNLESS YOU BUY GOLD NOW! HURRY TO MY GOLD SITE RIGHT NOW AND RESERVE YOUR GOLD TODAY!

>>58598904
>he actually wants the same people that censor tv and radio to censor the internet

please kill yourself

also gold is a pretty good investment desu

The average american would be far far richer today if we were still on the gold standard.

>>58598882
Holy shit this. It amazes me how many people bitch about monopolies without realizing many of today's monopolies are result of out-of-date government regulations that prevent competition. Then they call for more government power, as if the current monopoly will voluntarily give up it's influence over the regulators. Net Neutrality is pure controlled opposition.

File: 1353146583984.jpg (108KB, 400x400px) Image search: [Google]

108KB, 400x400px

>>58598930
>Holy shit this. It amazes me how many people bitch about monopolies without realizing many of today's monopolies are result of out-of-date government regulations that prevent competition. Then they call for more government power, as if the current monopoly will voluntarily give up it's influence over the regulators. Net Neutrality is pure controlled opposition.
Finally someone that gets it.

Liberals will NEVER talk about abolishing their precious government created monopolies which give these corporations massive amounts of power in the first place.

>>58598927
Net neutrality is literally the opposite of censorship, moron.

>>58598940
Telcoms are natural monopolies, idiot. You're not going to have 30 companies running a line of fiber to every house, just as you don't have 30 roads running to your driveway.

File: 1350202457457.jpg (89KB, 403x403px) Image search: [Google]

89KB, 403x403px

>>58598943
>he thinks they won't use this new power you want to give them as a tool to increase censorship
delusional

>>58598970
>Telcoms are natural monopolies
Wrong, the thing that's giving them their monopoly power is the fact these outdated government laws exist which give them monopoly power.

You're delusional.

https://www.wired.com/2013/07/we-need-to-stop-focusing-on-just-cable-companies-and-blame-local-government-for-dismal-broadband-competition/

>You're not going to have 30 companies running a line of fiber to every house
You could.

>>58598982
What tool? It's literally "a packet is a packet." Censoring is the exact opposite of net neutrality: "Let's treat packets different based on content!"

>>58598982
>the thing that's giving them their monopoly power is the fact these outdated government laws exist which give them monopoly power.
What laws?

When and where is the chicago protest going to be held? Will attend.

>>58599263
Let me just lay my own fiber after digging fiber channels so I can compete with comcast.

Are you fucking retarded? Comcast and other shitty ISPs should be classified as utility companies and regulation for basic utilities is a good thing.

I don't understand why these businesses exist in their current form to begin with. We shouldn't be discussing net neutrality, we should be discussing the reclassification of the internet as a utility in 2017.

File: yLnSHo5.png (62KB, 1426x661px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 1426x661px

>>58598982
>wired
stopped reading right there

>>58599263
There's no such thing as a free market, and monopolies naturally form.

There's one verizon/comcast shill in this thread just spouting bullshit. He's comcastic.

Anyone that has any sense of network infrastructure and technology should be for net neutrality.

If netflix has a 200% spike in traffic in one year the telco charges them for services. The shit telcos then try and throttle their traffic because it was interfering with their own television monopoly. That's a fucking fact. They also double dip on their own customers with caps.

Jesus, how can one person be so against their own interests unless they were on comcast's board of directors?

>>58599233
>the small ISPs
You mean fucking Comcast?
If I'm paying for a certain speed with a certain amount of usage per month, I want to be able to use it. Not "unless you're using Netflix or YouTube." If net neutrality is gotten rid of, there needs to at least be some rules about ISPs throttling certain websites. If it's in the contract you sign with the ISP that Netflix will go slow as shit, then fine, but changing that after the fact should be illegal.

>>58595107
One of the primary reasons that the government is such an inefficient and corruption mess is due to the amount of useless laws and regulations that keep them busy.

Net neutrality is a law to combat nothing real.

Net neutrality does not do anything at this point in time.

>>58599505
There's no such thing as "the state."

>>58599489
Not him, but Comcast lobbied my municipality to put heavy restrictions on how new ISP's can operate, which would really hinder anyone here from starting an ISP and take on Comcast's crazy prices.

Would guaranteeing net neutrality really be that bad? It's just a basic guarantee of service.

As far as I can tell, guaranteeing net neutrality would benefit me and others in my area, and wouldn't negatively affect those startups in washington, because they have incentive to provide good service anyways.

I'm generally against more regulations, but wouldn't it be good to have a guarantee of how your internet service works?

>>58599489
Fuck off you frog posting faggot. Hands off the goddamn internet.

The telcos were granted unbelievable monopolistic power back in the mid 90s when they were classified under title II.

This is only a partisan issue if you hate yourself. Less than 2% of Americans have 3 or more telcos and 61% only have a single telco to choose from.

The lack of net neutrality has implications beyond business interests, and as such should be classified as a utility to allow other business interests to thrive.

How dense are you? If you had a government protected water company that turned water to a trickle on a restaurant because it was doing a shitload of business, because that water company invested in shittier restaurants and then gave them water on the condition they pay more than anyone else AND also charge every homeowner in the area a water tax, that business should lose it's government protection.

File: laughing luigi.jpg (22KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 480x360px

>>58595115

>>58599579
I agree with you, but there is too much money exchanging hands to abolish government-granted monopolies anytime soon. It's impractical to think about stopping them in a reasonable timeframe.

I recognize that net neutrality is a stop-gap solution at best, but I honestly feel that's the best we can do right now. I heard about Nashville (and also Chattanooga, TN), and those seem to be really good success stories, but I'm sure that incumbent ISPs will double down on their lobbying if these ideas gain any traction.

>>58599579
Deregulating utilities caused prices to increase and services to fail on a wider scale.

Also you have dickheads tricking old ladies into changing companies then seeing their utility bills skyrocket.

Deregulating utilities is a moronic idea that was promoted by free market economists in the 90s and in ALL markets it has been shown to do nothing but hurt the consumer.

This is even including the fact that the electrical utilities were already given the federal funds to link the grid to the rural areas of the US.

Start a rail company then tell me how easy it is to get into an unregulated market dominated by 'not monopolies.'

>>58599544
Required to avoid No True Scotsman. If you define anyone with power as "the state" and you define a monopoly as being something other than "the state" then you've defined monopolies out of existence.
Treating state coercion as somehow separate from corporate is a false distinction. If a corporation attains a position where they have monopoly power, they are a state. And there are just a few examples of states.

>>58599534
>NN doesn't solve the biggest problem with internet access, therefore it does nothing
>ignoring the fact that you were called out for claiming that it was mostly small ISPs that lobby against net neutrality when Comcast is spearheading this whole thing
Giving different speeds for different sites is just like if my electricity provider gave me a certain rate per kwh unless I'm using electric heaters, at which point the power delivery to my house decreases.

>>58595505
https://youtu.be/fpbOEoRrHyU?t=4m

>>58599595
They were given government power already you frog fucker. They were already classified under article II incorrectly which allowed them unprecedented expanse of their control of what should be considered a utility.

How do you not see these things? Pull you head out of your government hating ass or do us all a favor and stop using power from the electric grid.

There's a guge difference between having a government do it's job, like regulating markets for the benefit of it's citizens and destroying markets from over regulation. Who wins and who loses from net neutrality?

You frog posting, comcast fucking shill.

GUYS TAKE A LOOK AT THIS
GUYS TAKE A LOOK AT THIS
GUYS TAKE A LOOK AT THIS

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/115/hr288

Is this a good bill? Looks like it already passed House

>>58599649
States are corporations.

>>58599701
OK I see what you mean, but what's the fix for this?

I'm just a regular guy, and I'll probably die of old age before any real change is made

>>58599665
Market forces have changed drastically since these companies were established and the laws have not kept up the reality.

If the government was to create a 'fiber utility company' with the stated goal to give 10Gb internet to all households in the US then I could see your arguments holding value.

But instead the US has given regulatory grey area to large monopolistic companies under the pretense that they deliver these services in a reasonable way to citizens.

There's no USPS for the internet because eatablished companies already had the infrastructure to deliver services.

Well now times have changed and those companies are the impediment to progress and fair use, it's not the other way around.

>>58599736
And the solution is to just be hands off on all regulation because it's stupid?

Go live in somaliland. There's a reasonable amount of regulation to all markets. Governments guide economies and companies work within that.

Having zero regulation works in some cases but it's literally nothing I can think of that benefits the consumer at any level.

Beyond that almost all markets end up with two massive entities evenly splitting value and territory. It's the end game of all mature economies of scale. Coke/pepsi, airbus/boeing.

Not sure what you think the world without regulation looks like but it's never 30 of something for long.

>>58599847
I believe that wealth and corporations own the government, but acting like there's nothing we should do but fall into bad political philosophy is cynical nonsense.

>>58596099
TPP has nothing to do with Europe. TIPP does. Learn what these two things are first.